Island Life: Browned to perfection
97 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
'And to test my reply to Craig, we'll see how many comments follow that are just jokes about 'brown' substances, compared with "serious political and public policy debate"...'
Doesn't that imply that we should take Turia and her attempt at fomenting ethnic strife seriously?
Lampooning Winston seems to have worked quite well. Why make an exception in Turia's case?
-
But sure, I'm losing my patience - this is yet another blurt that makes almost zero sense. Yet again, it's a total shame that the actual policy call has come off sounding completely ignorant of how the relevant policy (immigration and *settlement* in this case) is a) made, b) applied, and c) could actually be improved. However, is still important for 'my' camp to read between the lines and see she is attempting to 'clarify' her last comment about immigration, and making a specifically inclusive comment embracing all people of colour as potential allies (actually a good thing). I don't understand why this had to be said while at the same time nonsensically cutting out all people from other 'Western' countries (not all white, and even if they are...) as potential enemies.
I met Tariana Turia years ago, and was impressed by her - she has charisma in person. I thought it was a really good thing when she entered Parliament.
But I've gradually had to come to terms with the fact that a good deal of what she says - on teenage pregnancy, children's rights, civil unions, psychology and immigration, among other things - borders on the offensive to me. I also find her perpetually conspiratorial air irritating.
I think you're cutting her a lot of slack by "reading between the lines", given the logical balderdash you've identified in what she (and her party) said, but I understand that you'd want to give her the benefit of the doubt. I'm over that, I'm afraid.
But I'm not sure why you're so annoyed at the facetious response. I recall you having your fun with Peters ...
-
I personally think brown, yellow, and white substances are all equally funny. My serious policy is to never let them in, but letting them out is not really a matter for debate.
-
Lyndon:
Perhaps, but let's face it Tariana and the Maori Party has much better odds of being around after the next election than Winston and his queer little personality cult. Much as I hate to pay Helen Clark a compliment, she quite efficiently castrated Peters and replaced his balls with a nice shiny pair of baubles. (He can't even do that much damage as Minister of Foreign Photo-Ops While Helen & Phil Do The Real Work.)
If Clark and John Key had any real political courage, they would have promptly held a joint press conference and said any immigration policies along the lines laid out by Turia would not even be on the table as part of coalition negotiations. I think it's far to say both National and Labour have broad areas of policy agreement with the Maori Party - as well as much they're never going to get on the same page on. But you've got to ask whether there are some prices not worth paying for the key cards to the Beehive. Ruling out pandering to racist minor parties on something as critical to New Zealand's economic and social well-being as immigration would be a good place to start. Then, as I said above, we could begin to gather some kind of consensus around a coherent and workable immigration system - God knows it's going to be hard enough without the likes of Peters and Turia pimping for the brown-neck demographic.
-
Then again I did have coffee, porridge and grapefruit juice for breakfast.
-
"we could begin to gather some kind of consensus around a coherent and workable immigration system"
I'm backing cold fusion will happen first. We could get coherence and workability, but consensus is a pipedream.
-
Russell:
Nice comment, I'd also add a reality check for Tze Ming Mok. The most depressing thing about Turia's 'nasty, racist blurt' (as I/S so eloquently puts it) is that it's hardly the most extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric I've heard in my own whanau - let alone from *ahem* prominent Maori in forums that get little, if any, play in the MSM. (Just take Archbishop Whakahuihui Vercoe - his infamous 'world without gays' mouth-fart in his first major MSM interview following his election quite rightly drew criticism; the equally noxious public immigrant-bashing he'd been up to for years, not so much.)
There's plenty of brown-necks out there, Tze Ming, who aren't going to pay the slightest attention to a parenthetical half-backtrack excluding 'Asians' from the general anathema. When that dog-whistle starts to sounds, you're just tauiwi like everyone else who doesn't fit Turia's standard of racial correctness. Still, I am chuffed to be in such good company. :)
-
We could get coherence and workability, but consensus is a pipedream.
You're probably right - but I don't think any serious observer - left, right, whaever - can claim the status quo is working. At the very least, the New Zealand Immigration Service could do with political and public sector leadership that isn't just staggering from tragedy to farce and back again. I've often said that the people who get lost in the whole debate around immigration are the migrants who play by the rules, and get buggered around like they're bottoming in a porno. I thought trying to make sense of a student loan statement was torture - I've heard some heart-breaking (and stomach-churning) stories from migrant acquaintances about the shabby - and bewildering - treatment they've received at the hands of NZIS. That can't be good enough in any country that wants to attract good people who are going to be absolutely committed to New Zealand.
-
I'm not sure why you're so annoyed at the facetious response.
I'm not annoyed! Just monitoring progress after Craig's heartfelt appeal... Surely monitoring facetiousness is facetious in itself?
And hang on, isn't Craig the only Maori on the thread so far?
I think you're cutting her a lot of slack by "reading between the lines"
Actually, I don't think I'm cutting her slack - I think I'm accurately picking out her stab at minority coalition-building, be it in the clumsiest possible way that offends the largest number of people (er, her, not me, bad sentence sorry). I think my 'reading between the lines' is an accurate analysis based on other things she has written in addresses to 'my' side, which you may not have read. Ultimately, given that her actual 'policy' in this sense is obviously nonsensical and a dead duck, the surviving indications in her comments here are deeply relevant to my interests, those of 'actual brown' people I know, and how we might relate to each other or be represented politically within a system that marginalises us all. That's why I bother to read her statements closely, whereas you have given up by now.
p.s. I have already been informed by a close 'actual brown' advisor that not even Tariana can grant me 'honorary brown' status.
-
Yes, and Craig is probably right to be cynical, but parenthetical backtracks are better than nothing. Sad yes? Good thing I'm leaving the country... bad puns to follow, possibly.
-
I'd like to echo Craig's comment about the NZIS: it's not a fun thing to go through, that mill of mindless bureaucracy.
It'd be only fair if those people who put into place were made to go through that same process themselves, so as to understand how it actually works. Failing that, just head over to immigration.govt.nz and check it out.
-
And hang on, isn't Craig the only Maori on the thread so far?
Sadly, the Nielsen NetRatings demographics show Public Address readers to be less likely to be Maori than the average NZ internet user.
28% of y'all are in executive or senior government jobs though. And most of you made more money than me last year. Bah.
-
Good thing I'm leaving the country... bad puns to follow, possibly.
If you leave a fake forwarding address when you depart, the bad puns won't know where to find you.
-
merc,
I'm not and I didn't (senior G person and more money).
Real question, what does it take to be considered Maori? Is it an electoral role thing? A census thing? And is there a percentage thing? A marriage thing? Is the maternal line considered stronger than the paternal? A rohi (area born) thing? -
Tze: I am interested in what benefits you foresee a broad brown alliance might deliver (and hence your interest in the Maori Party). I struggle to see how you can hold out much hope in the Maori Party as a vehicle given the huge narrative gulf between contemporary generalised constructions of Maori/Pacific Peoples/Asian interests, (without even exploring conflicts within these categories). It is all very well to be against hegemony etc...
Redistribution?
Recognition?
Veto power in decision-making?
Foreign policy changes?
-
And hang on, isn't Craig the only Maori on the thread so far?
Um, being a National Party voter/member/ex-office holder immediately disqualifies you from any game of 'Hori-er Than Thou' - the big gay toaster oven was repossessed years ago. (And that was 110-proof facetious, in case anyone was wondering.) If you must, I'm white from the bellybutton up, brown from the upper thigh down, and the fun bits in the middle are a delightful beige and subject to a joint custody agreement.
-
Surprised I've got no bites on my no-immigration-policy-policy. I wasn't kidding on that one. Can anyone who doesn't like to think of themselves as a racist give me a clear description of the kind of people we don't want in this country?
-
Blutters. They need to be transported to deepest Queensland rightaway.
-
Ben: You are asking a methodologically individualistic question.
Of course letting in one or another person in as individuals is (usually) not problematic. However nation-states and the human population of the world are not collections of individuals but rather a plethora of social groupings with potentially massive social implications in their settlement patterns in particular places. It is certainly possible to not be racist and to make policy from a non-libertarian perspective.
-
Ben, I'd have thought there should reasonably be a limit on numbers as at least one criteria. There's sound reasons for limiting the number of people entering into a country as most infrastructure, public and private, is developed based on demographic forecasts and having open boarders would play havoc with that - almost all migrants to Australia end up in Eastern capitals, most in Sydney - the Sydney infrastructure is struggling.
All of this is however qualitatively different from what kinds of people you'd let in. Australia used to take in a great many more refugee migrants, now you need a trade or a qualification or else you end up in Woomera.
-
Isn't that an argument to make immigration policy from a libertarian perspective? If it's the only non-racist one?
It would be interesting to hear what massive social implications people are really afraid of. Spell it out. We'd have too many ... X. Fill in the X, everyone who wants to have a policy.
-
Paul, does that mean your X is "people"? We'd have too many people? Geez that would make a change for NZ, for sure.
-
merc,
Infrastructure, we should let them in.
-
Unmanaged growth in any region will create stresses on services and infrastructure and inevitably led to resentment from the locals - NZ could certainly deal with having more people but that's not an argument for opening the borders.
-
merc,
Opening boarders, now that will get you in trouble. We paid for our own sewerage plant, collect our own water, pay for rubbish removal per bag, have no inorg collection, few footpaths, a 2 hour commute because there's no public transport, no broadband, cellphones only just started reaching us and so on. Quite frankly I think we should be upfront and tell whoever wants to take a look here what they're up for.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.